Marilyn+article

Article Summary

I real-l-ly like Anne Marie Liebel’s work “Elbow Room: Tweaking Response in the Secondary Classroom,” and, even though she said ‘secondary classroom,’ she mentions later in the piece that she used this format with fifth graders. (I believe it could easily work in the lower grades as well). Liebel describes Peter Elbow’s format for peer response-group structure... * the writer (author) reads a work to a group of at least six peers
 * Format**
 * s/he reads the work aloud at least twice
 * while listening to the read, peers write their reactions (they may also read the piece after the author has read if needed)
 * once peers are done writing responses, the group shares aloud while the author listens and takes notes

Elbow generally works with older students and writers, so Liebel modifies Elbow’s process. She gave her students ‘primarily creative nonfiction’ writing prompts and asked them to develop 4-6 of the works in to 1,200-2,000 word essays. When the authors were ready for feedback, they brought multiple copies to class for their peers to read. At this point, peers offer specifics by sharing... Elbow’s thinking, regarding these kinds of peer responses, is that “writers start to realize the effect their prose has on others, what kind of echo their words make when they throw them out to the universe. The response groups give writers a real live audience who tell the truth about what they liked and why.” Liebel points out that students initially argue that they can’t be good critics, but, types of responses expected address only CONTENT and VOICE, not grammar, spelling or usage; therefore, peers can respond and are expected to provide the author with honest, helpful responses. Liebel is careful to point out that the student authors do not have to make changes suggested by their peers; they only have to determine what will or won’t improve the work. Liebel wanted to ensure that peers would have tools with which to respond so as to avoid ‘lame comments such as “that’s good” or “I like that.” She created a list of what critics do when they provide feedback. (handout) Liebel then brought in one of her own works, to use for modeling to demonstrate how they should respond. One idea she strongly stressed is that peers use “I” statements; Liebel believes those “statements keep editors telling the truth,” and keeps the focus on the editors rather than on the author. Saying “you said...,” or “you didn’t...,” or “you could’ve...,” places the focus on the author, who may end up feeling s/he is being “attacked.” Liebel then models how authors should respond: nodding, listening, taking notes, and saying “thanks.” Liebel sees little need for the author to talk. Elbow suggests allowing 15-20 minutes for each read; Liebel believes that provides adequate time to read the piece twice and listen to responses. She found if she gave students more time, they were more apt to get off topic, become bored, or ‘just sit and “beat dead horses.” Elbow requires peer responses once a week for 10 weeks; Liebel was hesitant to take that much time, but the students wanted that work time. Because the students valued the process, and because Liebel valued the quality of their response comments during group work, she sets aside one day a week for writing and responses. Elbow’s peer response groups include at least six members, which Liebel came to agree was a good group number (she has used as many as nine). She observed that larger groups provided a greater variety of responses, and she also found that the larger groups kept the tone more formal, whereas smaller groups tended to become more personal. Liebel also believes working in larger groups puts a certain amount of “pressure on one another to do well.” Like Elbow, Liebel also believes “the multiplicity of reactions. . . helps authors realize the effect their prose will have on any given audience.” Elbow recommends that the first three or four peer response groups provide only positive feedback. This allows apprehensive students to feel more comfortable about sharing their work. Eventually, students will want criticism, knowing their peers may have insights they (the authors) failed to see. Liebel stressed the importance of making sure that feedback was helpful. She also shares these thoughts: “growth is uncomfortable,” sharing “only pleasant things. . . is doing a disservice to their peers,” and being “honest and straightforward” is important. When sharing criticism, Leibel suggests students consider using three of Elbow’s response ideas: “summarize the piece, look for its center of gravity, or tell what [you[ feel it is about.” To keep group work interesting, Liebel’s students made the suggestion that each group member be given a number, and that the teacher randomly pick two or three numbers which resulted in those students moving to a ‘new’ group to work with different peers. Doing so allowed students to see different perspectives and different ways of thinking, in addition to getting to know their classmates better. Once group work started to go smoothly and she felt confident that the students could work independently, Liebel set up ten minute scheduled appointments to work with individual students, generally addressing the problems students had questions about.
 * what they thought
 * what they remembered
 * What they saw and/or
 * what they did (as they listened/read the work)
 * Training**
 * Time Factor**
 * Forming Groups and Rotating Group Members**

Liebel gives grades to students for participating in the peer response process, for author’s revising their works, and for the final copy. (She changes the weights of the three areas to keep the students focused on different skills, but she did not give specifics). Liebel talks with her students about the importance of relying on their peers for help with their writing; she points out that, rather than focusing on what a teacher wants, (because every teacher seems to ‘want’ something different), they should be focusing on what they consider to be real, meaningful writing. Liebel generally looks at student work twice--one instance could be with the one-on-one conference and the second would, of course, be the final piece. Because so many students have reviewed the author’s paper by the time she receives the final draft, Liebel points out there are fewer issues she has to address in the paper. Liebel’s decision to use the peer response process not only improved her students’ writing but also enhanced their knowledge and growth in other ways. She saw her students gain a better understanding of style, a stronger sense of confidence in their writing and speaking, and, she added, they became considerably better critical thinkers.
 * Grading and Accountability**
 * Conclusion**